4.2 Article

Peptides and proteins in a confined environment: NMR spectra at natural isotopic abundance

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEPTIDE SCIENCE
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 342-347

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/psc.848

关键词

NMR; confinement; agarose gel; lysozyme; low temperature

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U117584256, MC_U117533887] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U117584256, MC_U117533887] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U117584256, MC_U117533887] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Confinement of proteins and peptides in a small inert space mimics the natural environment of the cell, allowing structural studies in conditions that stabilize folded conformations. We have previously shown that confinement in polyacrylamide gels (PAGs) is sufficient to induce a change in the viscosity of the aqueous solution without changing the composition and temperature of the solvent. The main limitation of a PAG to run NMR experiments in a confined environment is the need for labelling the peptides. Here we report the use of the agarose gel to run the NMR spectra of proteins and peptides. We show that agarose gels are completely transparent in NMR experiments, relieving the need for labelling. Although it is necessary to expose biomolecules to fairly high temperatures during sample preparation, we believe that this is not generally an obstacle to the study of peptides, and found that the method is also compatible with temperature-resistant proteins. The mesh of agarose gels is too wide for direct effects of confinement on the stability of proteins but confinement can be easily exploited to interact the proteins with other reagents, including crowding macromolecules that can eventually lead to fold stabilization. The use of these gels is ideally suited for low-temperature studies; we show that a very flexible peptide at subzero temperatures is stabilized into a well-folded conformation. Copyright (C) 2007 European Peptide Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据